Posted on 10/03/2007 10:36:53 PM PDT by neverdem
REPORTS have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.
After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.
The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.
Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.
The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
So, murdering babies for political expediency is OK in your book?
Voters, by and large, have core values. Your argument seems to be that the voter is required to set aside their core values and support the party's candidate because the other party's candidate is so much worse. So much for core values, huh?
Parties once had core values. The dems still do, and seem to have no problem ramming abortion, gay rights, and wealth distribution down everyone's throats when they have the chance. The pubbies have decided they can be just like the dems, only a little less so. So the Republican voter has to side with the dem-lite just because the dem-heavy is a little worse?
If your core value - the overriding principle that guides your conscience - is winning elections, then you are welcome to your method of exercising your vote. But your sanctimony and recriminations against others who hold different issues as sacred is childishly petulant.
Scaling back the "core Republican platform" to exclude some of the defining issues, such as abortion, is tantamount to a phrase that ends with "... and the horse you rode in on!".
Conservatives have long told the African-American community that the dems only want to "keep them on the plantation", never addressing the issues important to that group. Now, you are advocating founding just such a plantation for Christian conservatives within the Republican party. No thanks.
In other words - any Republican candidate is acceptable. Stopping the current totally evil Democrat doesn't solve the issue of "getting an acceptable candidate" in the republican party next time. Or the time after that.
Or should we ignore the "slippery slope" we have placed ourselves on until we're all soaked in the waste at the bottom?
It’s almost a choice between “principle” and actually having the chance to stop abortion. It’s a tough choice, but doing anything to enhance Hillary’s chances of being elected (or any dem for that matter), means the certainty of many, many more years of innocent babies dying, or one more conservative on the bench and the hope of this atrocious evil being stopped. So the question becomes: in the event of a Rudy v. dem choice, if I vote principle, can I live with the consequences; if I vote for Rudy who has vowed to appoint strict constructionists to the bench, do I at least have a chance to see innocent babies’ lives saved in the near future? It’s a challenge I’m genuinely pondering.
I have.
Eternal damnation for condoning the murder of babies, unhindered by a Democrat versus eternal damnation for condoning the murder of babies, unhindered by a Republican, versus casting my vote for someone who will, given the opportunity, do something to shut down the murder mills.
Frankly, we religious types don't give a rat's ass what any earthly person thinks of our vote. This isssue and my actions are between me and my God.
Should the rest of humanity jump off the cliff, I should follow?
No.
There will come a time when we are indeed accountable for our actions.
Will Hillary promote the slaying of babies in the womb more than Rudy?
Izzat so?
I cannot condone murder, period.
I will not vote for a candidate who will not at least attempt to slow the torrent of innocent blood which is shed each and every year since Roe.
It is a matter of conscience.
I don't want Hillary, but I won't sell my soul to keep her out.
So if the rest of the party wants their candidate to win, or is going to blame us if they do not, maybe they ahould get off their frigging high horse and consider that there are some issues on which some of us will. not. compromise.
Murder is murder, and I won't vote for those who uphold it as good, no matter what their party affiliation.
Ummm... Let me think about this... Ummm... No.
I am not advocating abortion. Nobody on the Republican side is advocating abortion.
The problem is, nobody on the Republican side is meeting the requirements for whatever imaginary test some people seem to have for purity on the abortion issue. This argument has side-tracked the party from the important issues.
That someone will never be given the opportunity. That someone will get, maybe, 5% of the vote. The only impact that person could have is allowing Hillary Clinton to win with 48% of the vote.
Like I said before, we have all had this fight so many times, we can recite the parts in our sleep. But if you really think there is no difference between Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton on the abortion issue, you have to be denying reality.
Is Rudy Giuliani everything we could want on this issue? Of course not. Is he the inevitable Republican nominee? I sure hope not. But if he is the nominee, I will vote for him with a clear conscience, knowing that I have incrementally advanced the cause, instead of helping to set us back. I will then continue to work in my familly, my church and my community to advance the pro-life cause to the point where no further compromises will be necessary, because life will be valued by the preponderance of voters in this country.
E-mail/ping me if you want on/off the list! SPREAD THE WORD!!!
Forgive me if it’s a stretch, but Dobson clarifies some things about the Salt Lake City meeting.
It seems that there is near unanimity among those at the meeting to go third party of Rudy gets the nod. I will be right there with them.......
So much for the RINO-gasm over splitting the SoCon vote and marginalizing the whole movement.
I don't advocate a political purity test for abortion, but I do recognize that there should be some consistency over time regarding a politician's position on the subject. I have the same opinion over 2nd amendment rights, as a matter of fact.
Both of these are in the list of "important issues" bucket, IMO. If the one Republican candidate I am aware of who is four-square opposed to my views on these two subjects gets the nomination for the party, I honestly do not know if I can live with pulling the lever for him - despite the fact that the opposition is so very wrong. I have to live with my conscience after the election.
It also bothers me that the Republican front-runner appears to be the hand-selected favorite of the drive-by media, but that's a different story
That nails it!
If the party nominates a baby murderer, I will vote third party.
It’s as simple as that.
sitetest
I cannot, I will not vote for Rudy, Niner-one-one.
Rudy, pick up the phone....
So, which of the Republican candidates is four-square pro-abortion and anti 2A?
What is called pragmatism in politics is really merely dangerous shortsightedness and destructive compromise.
Why? Because, it is still true that whatever we sow, we reap.
It’s time for conservatives to stop with the subjective, skewed and deceptive electability arguments and go back to planting good seed, then tending and watering it until the crop we seek bears fruit.
We may have to live with tares until the harvest, but we shouldn’t participate in any way in planting them. That’s the work of the enemy of our souls.
Why? It's basically the NYTs saying Hillary is going to be the next President of the USA. They're excited to print that!
It is important, at some point, to step back from the rhetoric and examine the reality. None of the Republican candidates support abortion. There is some variability on how they would approach the problem, but none supports abortion.
The “NARAL Champion of Choice” and SELF_PROFESSED abortion rights activist, Rudy Giuliani, is an unapologetic supporter of abortion.
Dr. Dobson squarely hits the target. Long stated ago, Christians and others, alike, are held to a personal responsibility with their Creator. I will not believe, nor will I ever be convinced that what occurs by default will rest upon my account if I have remained true to the Christian principles my God has led me in. It is my first duty to remain true to the concepts of my faith, regardless of consequence others may or may not incite.
Please Google (or use your favorite search engine) and search for "Abortion Capital of America" and note which city has that distinction AND note who the Mayor was when the city acquired that reknown.
"Results 1 - 10 of about 931.."
By a large margin it's NYC and Rudy, Niner-one-one.
I know it is thing gruel, but Rudy has recently softened his position. He has also committed to appointing constructionist judges, which will be the mechanism by which Roe vs. Wade is finally overturned. NARAL is not going to be giving him any more awards anytime soon.
He's not my candidate, but if I have to choose between him and Hillary Clinton, who gives a full throated endorsment to appointing judges who will maintain Roe vs. Wade, the choice seems obvious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.